|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-28-2012, 03:10 PM
|
| |
Hi Jakob, sorry if I had a sense of humour failure. The problem with the reds in the second poppy shot was much more to do with me messing up the WB and not correcting it properly in ACR, than a failure of the Sigma lens - it works very nicely, mostly.
If I have a philosophical point to make, it's that there shouldn't be Pentaxians/Canonians/Nikonians trying to out-do each other, but photographers trying to share information; that was all I was ever trying to do here and I WILL try to get to grips with my verbosity.
Maybe if I get a general thumbs up that it won't offend too many peeps, I can post some more Tak/Nik dslr shots, because I'm not going to stop using that combo, and some of them may be worth sharing because of what they look like, not what gear they were taken with.
But here goes, more verbosity - I went to North Wales in June with my 90+ years mum, and all I took with me (photographically!) was the D700 and three Taks - the 24/3.5 featured here recently, a 50/1.4 (can't remember which of my four versions I was toting) and a 135/3.5. Pretty much the classic tryptich of three primes on a film SLR. Nothing much came out of it as an artistic set, but I would like you all to think that I wouldn't have taken that set of gear if I wasn't happy that the optical adapter wasn't going to degrade the images enough to make them unenjoyable. And it didn't.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-27-2012, 01:40 PM
|
| |
What's with the smiley? Is it a hint that I could make my points (which still no-one has responded to) much more concisely? Fair point, I know I need to work on that; especially the double post where I quoted myself. That would be a positive thing to say, and I hope that was where you're coming from.
Or is it code for from the current "the man" to say "hey guys, this is how to see off Nikon fan boys coming on here strutting their stuff"?
Whatever. You've posted some strange stuff on here recently (clothes pegs + steam, blurry brother "we were having fun", girlfriend posing), mostly if not always asking for the response "please tell me this is rubbish if you think so". Well, my response to that is that I don't think any of them add anything to what Takumar lenses are renowned for, they could all of have been done with the bottom of a glass bottle and been just as artistic. It all depends on the type of bottle, of course, are Pentax bottles better than Nikon bottles?
What do you think, Jakob?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-26-2012, 11:21 AM
|
| |
Re 135 film people like - it should be clear from the context, but I should have said "currently available"
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-26-2012, 11:11 AM
|
| |
I may have pressed the wrong 'quick reply' button here - these remarks are meant mainly for Jakob from CPH.
Well, I do shoot film pretty regularly - more monochrome than colour, but I do have a roll of Velvia 50 waiting to be loaded - I would appreciate your advice on whether I'm more likely to get more vivid reds using it via CZJ glass on a Pentacon P6, or going Bronica ETRS? I doubt I'm going to waste a mildly expensive frame on a shop window display, though.
I would be even more interested in anyone with suggestions on which 135 transparency film they like, and why (punchy reds/creamy softness, whatever). I promise only to post the results on here if I use Taks on my ESII. I already have too many cameras, and I don't think I need a Pentax 645. They'd still have to be digitised of course, with all the PP opportunities that that offers..... including colour manipulation.
But Jakob, you've missed the point. I'm not remotely trying to show off how super (or not) my most used camera body is and how it renders colour. My reason for being here is to illustrate (mainly to Chex, who may still be slighly interested, but who has already suggested that a club for Takumars is far from the best place to discuss it) that there are good optical converters for M42 to Nikon - and bad. I think I've got a good one - from Kood. I only ever came on here because Chex posted a shot with Tak + cheap optical adapter and said he knew it wasn't very sharp but wasn't going to invest $40 on a good one. I tried to pull his leg about the relative cost of a good adapter and his new camera, but I hadn't done my homework properly because he'd already explained that as he only has 1 Tak it wouldn't be worth the investment. But maybe if he gets the idea that not all optical adapters are rubbish, he might think about getting some more - there are still very good deals to be had, although the days of fantastic lenses for the price of a bag of chips (fries) are mostly behind us. Do I care either way? No, not really, but if he's filed my pix away somewhere in his mind and the next time he spots a Tak on ebay and thinks of this episode then I'd be happy.
I've posted three pix on here, two with a Tak f/3.5:24 using my optical adapter, and the most recent with a Sigma lens without. The first two got trashed because the drop off in sharpness 'is clearly evident' - it wasn't/isn't to me - and now you because the reds aren't right.
I came in peace to try to add a little bit of evidence to the photography family, are you really surprised that I'm not finding this a fun place to be?
Oh - one final thing - my K5 toting elder brother doesn't much like the Nikon digital output becausehe thinks the blues don't look right. Blues = wrong, now Reds = wrong; I'd better stick to shooting green stuff.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-25-2012, 08:24 AM
|
| |
This is a more or less equivalent shot I took today, not really a fair test because a week apart and very different weather conditions, but the most important things (ISO, f stop) are the same. White balance and exposure a bit iffy. This was taken with a fairly well respected Sigma 'Super-wide' AF 24mm/2.8 this time. It doesn't leap out at me that the optical adapter is having much to do with anything?
What I will say, for the last time on here before I really do head off for more fun places, that using M42 lenses (including Pentax's finest) with an optical adapter (as long as it's a good one) on Nikon cameras is viable, with no 'easily noticeable' IQ issues.
Best IQ possible? No, of course not. Good fun; absolutely. Cheers; Goodbye.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-20-2012, 12:30 PM
|
| |
Not sure what happenned there - this is the first image I thought would appear with my long message above.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-20-2012, 12:25 PM
|
| |
....with my Kood optical adapter (and a circular polariser just to add another bit of glass.. oh.... and the shop window of course, three extra bits of glass between image and sensor...). The polariser was held firmly against the shop window, I'd tried different techniques but reflections from the shop window defeated me.
It's uncropped so any degradation in the corners is still there, to help assessment of the affect of the adapter on corner IQ. It's not the whole story of course, whether the drop off is down to the lens or the adapter or a combination of both is a different question. And (light bulb goes on) one I can test; this shot is well within the range of the same lens without the optical adapter, and if I'd thought of that at the time I could have done a series with and a series without the adapter. Luckily the shop window is 4 minutes away and a single "could you go back and do that then?" request will get a "yes of course, give me a day or two and it will be done".
Something that doesn't get mentioned often enough on this optical adapter issue: to get the infinity focus with the Nikon registration distance, the adapters are (if properly calibrated to give exact infinity focus when the lens says so) actually x1.1 teleconverters (you'll have to trust me for now, but I've measured it) so this 24mm Tak is actually a 26.4mm lens in this shot.
Oh, and don't trust the exif on aperture. I found that to get near enough correct exposures I had to lie to the D700 and tell it a 24mm f/5 was attached, so that's what it will show. The shot is actually either f/8 or f/11. It spooked me, I have to say, I have a good selection of Taks and this is the only one that when I tell the camera the focal length and max aperture it gets the exposure badly wrong.
[@chex and your ideas about an AF 35mm - I said earlier that the APS-C Nikkor 35/1.8 vignettes "slightly, but not as much as you might think". I did a quick refresher course, and it's highly aperture dependent. Wide open it's hardly noticeable at FF, f/4 to f/5.6 it's noticeable but something some folk might add in PP for an arty effect, but by f/8 peeps will be saying "that's an APS-C lens on a FF camera". I can send you some examples, but this clearly isn't the place to post Nik AF shots. If - and I don't think you are - thinking of an MF 35mm then you should include the CZJ 35/2.4 Flektogon in your thinking. Even Tak diehards acknowledge that's a good'un. You would of course need an optical adapter...... and preferably a good one :-))]
I referred to "42 crowd" in my first couple of posts, I should have said "M42 crew". That's probably my natural home on PentaxForums in the digital era (the only Pentax camera body I still have likely to see any action is an ESII). I have a series of quite well controlled shots of fast(ish) 50(ish) lenses, each with shots from wide open to shut down, it includes three Taks (both versions, 7 and 8 element, of the original Super-Takumar 1.4/50 and also the SMC 1.4/50), Auto Sears 55/1.4, a CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8, the longest and slowest was a CZJ Biotar 58/2. All on the D700 and all with the optical adapter. And a much better insight into Bokeh than sharpness, to be honest.
I've just added another shot (the ivy + autumn fallen leaves one); this time the only extra glass element is the Kood adapter; looks quite sharp to me until you get down to the very nitty gritty of the bottom right hand corner where it goes very soft. Lens? Adapter? Combination of the two?
These are probably the first and last shots I'll post in this club (but watch out M42 Crew); but also will still definitely continue to pop in regularly to have a look at what you peeps do with the Taks, as I said early on I've been lurking on here for a couple of years or more, not because I'm a gear freak (which I would probably have to admit to) but because these lenses on modern Pentax dslrs continue to produce beautiful and/or challenging images. Long may it continue.
I nearly forgot - the ivy shot is also the 26.4 SuperTak!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-16-2012, 12:40 AM
|
| |
Chex, good point about this being a photo sharing site, so I'll take the D700 for a walk over the weekend with the Super-Multi-Coated 1:3.5 24mm + Kood converter and see what I can come up with.
I also have the Nikon 35/1.8 and yes it does vignette on the 700, but not as much as you might expect. I think I remember an earlier shot of yours on here where you had some vignetting but didn't mind? Not far off that. I have some examples of that, but no time to post them now, off to work.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-14-2012, 04:37 PM
|
| |
Hi Chex, the interesting *problem* is that with all other things being as equal as I can get them, - target chart, tripod, off camera Strobe (SB800), 35-80 Adaptall Sp at 80mm, everything I can think of is the same, I get more detail/higher resolution with the D60 than the D700. I know it's anti-intuitive, but it's true. I'll post a couple of examples I already have when I've converted them from RAW, but it won't be before the weekend, and I don't think I'll get the chance to show what I'm really talking about - the difference with the same camera (whatever I end up using) for shots with and without the optical converting adapter. I'm still not sure how that will turn out.
I know from personal experience that I can get shots on the D700 with M42 lenses with the Kood optical adapter - some with Takumars, probably a few more from the CZJ stable - that look perfectly acceptable to me. I know from real-life landscape shots (rather than test chart/brick wall stuff) that the Adaptall SP 35-80 with the optical adapter is sharper than my D700 walkaround lens, the Nikkor 28-200, at about 80mm; what I haven't bottomed out is how much (if any) difference there is with the 35-80 with and without the adapter. It's very close, though.
The axe I'm trying to grind is to gainsay those folk who say "ah, yes, you could use this classic M42 glass on Nikon but why would you bother, when the loss in IQ necessarily involved to get infinity focus makes the whole thing pointless." Well, not in my experience. It's just a question of gathering some evidence, and that takes work.
I guess this little exchange could be better placed on the M42 Crowd Club - I've followed this club and the Adaptall Mount Club for a few years now, without registering and contributing, but the M42 Crowd is a newbie for me, and looks like a lot of fun.
As I've already said, I'm very conscious that this topic is for people either with Nikon cameras or thinking of switching, and this is PentaxForums; I'll consider any suggestions that I take myself elsewhere very carefully.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-13-2012, 01:13 PM
|
| |
At the moment I *only* have a D700 and D60 to play with (I sold my D2X a couple of months ago); and I don't think comparisons between those two are cutting edge? So I don't think I'm going to be doing much more than I already have with those. If enough folk say "yes please" then I'll think about it As I said, work in progress. But I am wondering quite seriously if I might add a D7000 to the armoury.
Also, as this is a Pentax forum, may I suggest that the optical adapter with M42 will only be of interest to those interested in a switch to Nikon (Canon doesn't need the optical element). So on here (it would be different on Nikon forums, which I stay away from on the whole, mainly because they're so sniffy about anything that isn't a modern Nikkor fast lens) it would probably only be those with an interest in going FF that would be interested?
I will be doing more, and sharing, but don't hold your breaths.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-13-2012, 12:36 PM
|
| |
No idea where this will end up in the thread - my first post here. Sorry if it goes skew wiff, I'm trying to join the recent debate between Chex and ??? (sorry) about optical adapters and the Nikon system. I'm a Nikon dslr type too. But I do love my SuperTaks, and enjoy using them on my D700....
.... with a good optically corrected adapter. Also on my ESII and other M42 film bodies. But mostly digital.
Chex talked about how to test the IQ loss, and mentioned same lens on a D7000 and K5. Well, OK - but only up to a point. If we're interested in the IQ loss of using a good (Kood! like mine! and ???'s!) M42/Nik optically corrected adapter, then the best idea I've come up with is to use a really good Adaptall lens (the wonderful SP 35-80 2.8-3.8, at its longest which is where it's best) with a Nik mount and then an M42 mount + Kood adapter. Same camera, same distance from the target (a not yet quite firmed up design test chart using resolution charts - Bob Atkin's is amongst the contenders). And then share the results.
It's a work in progress because I'm not sure what camera to use - D700? Beautiful beast. D60? PITA, but resolves better than the 700 for this sort of stuff. Seems a bit weird, but it isn't really.
Now then Chex. You're happy to buy a D800, but you're not prepared to pay $40 for a good quality optical adapter to get the best out of your M42s because you can fix it in PP? Weird.
|
